Turner urges AG to drop Voting Rights Act challenge (UPDATE)

UPDATE: Attorney General Greg Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean said, “Critics raise these concerns because they are afraid of losing at the Supreme Court. Why would critics trust a lower court, but not the highest court, to decide this issue? More importantly, why do critics continue to fight against laws intended to prevent cheating and illegal voting at the ballot box?” Bean said. “They know that the Attorney General’s Office has prosecuted voter fraud across Texas and it must be stopped. Those same critics also know that Latinos are repeatedly victimized by voter fraud and Texans of all races strongly support voter ID. They need to stop playing politics and start preventing illegal voting in Texas.”

My former colleague Gary Scharrer reported last year that fewer than five “illegal voting” complaints involving voter impersonations were filed with Abbott’s office from the 2008 and 2010 general elections. Abbott handled just 20 allegations of election-law violations in the two elections, with most involving something other than impersonation.

Bean also said, “No one has been more misleading about voter ID than Representative (Martinez) Fischer. He said that voter ID would prevent his mother from voting, however, when cross examined — under oath — he had to change his story and admit that his mother in fact had a driver’s license that would allow her to vote. That kind of misrepresentation has been the driving force behind those against voter integrity laws.”

Bean concluded: “We are confident that the Supreme Court will provide a fair hearing on this matter and Texas will abide by its decision. All sides should show that level of respect.”

Original post:

Rep. Sylvester Turner

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a challenge to a Voting Rights Act requirement that states including Texas receive federal approval before implementing voting-law changes, a black state lawmaker on Monday urged Attorney General Greg Abbott to drop his push to do away with the provision.

Without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Rep. Sylvester Turner said, many if not all of the state’s black lawmakers would not be serving at the Capitol.

“I certainly would encourage the attorney general not to pursue his actions on behalf of the state of Texas in trying to strike it down,” said Turner, a Houston Democrat who heads the Texas Legislative Black Caucus.

“The attorney general represents all of us, not just some of us… We all represent the fabric of the state of Texas, and the reality is the fabric of the state of Texas is changing,” said Turner. “This is not a time to move back in time.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday is due to consider a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama. Texas has mounted a similar challenge in its appeal of a ruling against the state in its redistricting case.

AG Greg Abbott

Abbott has said the Section 5 preclearance, initiated in Texas after a 1975 English-only ballot, is no longer needed in Texas. He has called that provision expensive and unconstitutional. He is not challenging the entire act. I’ve asked his office for comment on Monday’s remarks.

Turner appeared at a news conference with civil rights advocates from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Texas NAACP and Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat who heads the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.

Martinez Fischer said that Texas in redistricting and approving other election changes such as the Voter ID law “has really created a textbook example” of why the Voting Rights Act is needed in Texas.” He said that in challenging Section 5, “I think what he (Abbott) is telling you is that he’s tired of losing under Section 5.”

Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer

Most recently, Martinez Fischer pointed to the Voter ID law and to the redistricting plan approved by the GOP-dominated Legislature, which MALC was prominent in challenging.

A federal judicial panel ruled that the Voter ID measure discriminated against minorities and the poor. A federal court ruling also went against Texas on redistricting, saying the state discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and diluted minority voting strength. The 2012 elections were held under interim district lines.

Luis Figueroa, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said it’s key that Section 5 remain in place to prevent discriminatory laws from taking effect. Without it, he said, the laws would take effect while claims that they were discriminatory were pursued.

“Texas is the poster child for why we need Section 5,” Figueroa said.

The groups have filed amicus briefs stating their position with the U.S. Supreme Court.